Editorial - Restrictive voting law needs to go on pause until its day in court

Published: Sunday, July 13, 2014 at 11:06 p.m.

Last Modified: Sunday, July 13, 2014 at 11:06 p.m.

A federal judge will soon decide whether to block North Carolina's new voting laws. Based on evidence presented last week in U.S. District Court in Winston-Salem, a preliminary injunction is warranted until after the merits of the case can be explored at a full trial.

At issue are North Carolina's sweeping voting law changes which, among other things, require a photo ID; truncate early voting and eliminate it on the day of the week that was popular with black voters; make it harder for young people and students to vote; ax same-day registration; and take away a provision allowing a voter who mistakenly goes to the wrong precinct to cast a ballot there and have it transferred to his or her home precinct. Together, these laws will make it more difficult for certain groups, especially low-income minorities, senior citizens and young people, to cast ballots.

Supporters say they just want to make sure that only properly registered voters have a say in our elections process. The integrity of our elections process is indeed important. But so is ensuring that citizens have the right to participate in that process without facing unnecessary or politically motivated obstacles.

The new voting laws are likely to discourage or exclude many qualified voters. Other states have adopted tough voting laws, but North Carolina's is said to be the most exclusionary. It does not, for example, provide an alternative to people who do not have photo identification and would have financial or logistical difficulty retrieving a certified birth certificate required to get a government-issued photo ID. That would be a reasonable addition.

Voting is a constitutional right for U.S. citizens 18 and older. It is not a privilege, as is getting a driver's license or boarding a flight. The government should have to clear a high bar before denying the vote to any citizen.

Kim Strach, the state elections director – whose husband is among the lawyers defending the voting laws – confirmed in a video deposition that the type of fraud North Carolina's laws purport to prevent is exceedingly rare. Only one case was prosecuted in 10 years. In addition, Strach pointed to a double standard: No photo ID is required for voters who file absentee ballots, a method that tends to be used more by Republican voters.

Democratic voters, on the other hand – and especially black Democrats – are more partial to early voting. But early voting is popular across all demographics. In the 2012 general election, 56 percent of North Carolinians who went to the polls voted before Election Day.

The court has a lot to decide. It would be foolish to put these laws in place before the full trial, where both sides have the ability to lay out all their evidence and prove their case. The most restrictive of the provisions, including the photo ID requirement, do not take effect until 2016 anyway.

Delaying implementation of the voting restrictions until after the District Court-level ruling is the prudent course of action. That also would give the Honorables time to reconsider how to better ensure that in stopping fraud – a legitimate government goal – the law does not – inadvertently or deliberately – disenfranchise any voting-age citizen.

<p>A federal judge will soon decide whether to block North Carolina's new voting laws. Based on evidence presented last week in U.S. District Court in Winston-Salem, a preliminary injunction is warranted until after the merits of the case can be explored at a full trial.</p><p>At issue are North Carolina's sweeping voting law changes which, among other things, require a photo ID; truncate early voting and eliminate it on the day of the week that was popular with black voters; make it harder for young people and students to vote; ax same-day registration; and take away a provision allowing a voter who mistakenly goes to the wrong precinct to cast a ballot there and have it transferred to his or her home precinct. Together, these laws will make it more difficult for certain groups, especially low-income minorities, senior citizens and young people, to cast ballots.</p><p>Supporters say they just want to make sure that only properly registered voters have a say in our elections process. The integrity of our elections process is indeed important. But so is ensuring that citizens have the right to participate in that process without facing unnecessary or politically motivated obstacles.</p><p>The new voting laws are likely to discourage or exclude many qualified voters. Other states have adopted tough voting laws, but North Carolina's is said to be the most exclusionary. It does not, for example, provide an alternative to people who do not have photo identification and would have financial or logistical difficulty retrieving a certified birth certificate required to get a government-issued photo ID. That would be a reasonable addition.</p><p>Voting is a constitutional right for U.S. citizens 18 and older. It is not a privilege, as is getting a driver's license or boarding a flight. The government should have to clear a high bar before denying the vote to any citizen.</p><p>Kim Strach, the state elections director – whose husband is among the lawyers defending the voting laws – confirmed in a video deposition that the type of fraud North Carolina's laws purport to prevent is exceedingly rare. Only one case was prosecuted in 10 years. In addition, Strach pointed to a double standard: No photo ID is required for voters who file absentee ballots, a method that tends to be used more by Republican voters. </p><p>Democratic voters, on the other hand – and especially black Democrats – are more partial to early voting. But early voting is popular across all demographics. In the 2012 general election, 56 percent of North Carolinians who went to the polls voted before Election Day.</p><p>The court has a lot to decide. It would be foolish to put these laws in place before the full trial, where both sides have the ability to lay out all their evidence and prove their case. The most restrictive of the provisions, including the photo ID requirement, do not take effect until 2016 anyway.</p><p>Delaying implementation of the voting restrictions until after the District Court-level ruling is the prudent course of action. That also would give the Honorables time to reconsider how to better ensure that in stopping fraud – a legitimate government goal – the law does not – inadvertently or deliberately – disenfranchise any voting-age citizen.</p>